THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHODS ON

ACHIEVEMENT, RETENTION, AND ATTITUDES OF HOME

ECONOMICS STUDENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Rosini B. Abu, Assistant Pro!ssor
"abatan P!n#i#i$an
Fa$u%ti P!n&a'ian P!n#i#i$an
Uni(!rsiti P!rtanian Ma%a)sia
"i* F%o+!rs, Asso,iat! Pro!ssor
D!-art*!nt o A&ri,u%tura% an# E.t!nsion E#u,ation
Bo. /01/
Nort2 Caro%ina Stat! Uni(!rsit)
Ra%!i&2, Nort2 Caro%ina 3/0456/01/
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative learning approach of
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the achievement of content knowledge,
retention, and attitudes toward the teaching method. ooperative learning was compared to
noncooperative (competitive) learning classroom structure using a !uasi-e"perimental design.
An achievement test, consisting of items from the state competency test-item #ank for the
course, and an attitude !uestionnaire were administered immediately following instruction on
the unit of special nutritional needs. A retention test was administered three weeks following
the achievement test. alifornia Achievement Test scores and first semester grades in home
economics classes were used as covariates to ad$ust for possi#le pree"isting differences
#etween the groups. %ultivariate analysis of covariance showed no significant difference
among the dependent varia#les (achievement and retention) #etween the teaching methods
used. There was also no significant difference in student attitudes toward the teaching
methods.
Teachers have the option of structuring lessons competitively, individualistically, or
cooperatively. The decisions teachers make in structuring lessons can influence students&
interactions with others, knowledge, and attitudes (arson, '(()* +ohnson , +ohnson, '(-.).
/n a competitively structured classroom, students engage in a win-lose struggle in an effort to
determine who is #est (+ohnson , +ohnson, '(('). /n competitive classrooms students
perceive that they can o#tain their goals only if the other students in the class fail to o#tain
their own goals (+ohnson, +ohnson, , 0olu#ec, '(-1). Students in independently structured
classrooms work #y themselves to accomplish goals unrelated to those of the other students
(+ohnson , +ohnson, '(('). /n a cooperative learning classroom students work together to
attain group goals that cannot #e o#tained #y working alone or competitively. /n this
classroom structure, students discuss su#$ect matter, help each other learn, and provide
encouragement for mem#er of the group (+ohnson, +ohnson, , 0olu#ec, '(-1).
ooperative learning, as an instructional methodology provides opportunities for students to
develop skills in group interactions and in working with others that are needed in today&s
world (arol, '(--* /mel, '(-(* 2erka, '(()). According to +ohnson and +ohnson ('(-(),
cooperative learning e"periences promote more positive attitudes toward the instructional
e"perience than competitive or individualistic methodologies. /n addition, cooperative
learning should result in positive effects on student achievement and retention of information
(Dishon , 3&4eary, '(-5* +ohnson , +ohnson, '(()* Slavin, '(('). According to %c2eachie
('(-1), students are more likely to ac!uire critical thinking skills and metacognitive learning
strategies, such as learning how to learn, in small group cooperative settings as opposed to
listening to lectures.
T2!or!ti,a% Fra*!+or$, Con,!-tua% Bas!, an# R!%at!# Lit!ratur!
According to Slavin ('(-.), there are two ma$or theoretical perspectives related to
cooperative learning -- motivational and cognitive. The motivational theories of cooperative
learning emphasi6e the students& incentives to do academic work, while the cognitive theories
emphasi6e the effects of working together.
%otivational theories related to cooperative learning focus on reward and goal structures. 3ne
of the elements of cooperative learning is positive interdependence, where students perceive
that their success or failure lies within their working together as a group (+ohnson, +ohnson, ,
0olu#ec, '(-1). 7rom a motivational perspective, 8cooperative goal structure creates a
situation in which the only way group mem#ers can attain their personal goals is if the group
is successful8 (Slavin, '((), p. '5). Therefore, in order to attain their personal goals, students
are likely to encourage mem#ers within the group to do whatever helps the group to succeed
and to help one another with a group task.
There are two cognitive theories that are directly applied to cooperative learning, the
developmental and the ela#oration theories (Slavin, '(-.). The developmental theories
assume that interaction among students around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of
critical concepts (Damon, '(-5). 9hen students interact with other students, they have to
e"plain and discuss each other&s perspectives, which leads to greater understanding of the
material to #e learned. The struggle to resolve potential conflicts during colla#orative activity
results in the development of higher levels of understanding (Slavin, '(()). The ela#oration
theory suggests that one of the most effective means of learning is to e"plain the material to
someone else. ooperative learning activities enhance ela#orative thinking and more fre!uent
giving and receiving of e"planations, which has the potential to increase depth of
understanding, the !uality of reasoning, and the accuracy of long term retention (+ohnson,
+ohnson, , 0olu#ec, '(-1). Therefore, the use of cooperative learning methods should lead to
improved student learning and retention from #oth the developmental and cognitive
theoretical #ases.
Several studies have e"amined the effects of cooperative learning methods on student
learning. 0umphreys, +ohnson, and +ohnson ('(-:) compared cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic strategies in science classes and found that students who were taught #y
cooperative methods learned and retained significantly more information than students taught
#y the other two methods. Sherman and Thomas ('(-1) found similar results in a study
involving high school general mathematics classes taught #y cooperative and individualistic
methods. Allen and ;an Sickle ('(-5) used STAD as the e"perimental treatment in a study
involving low achieving students. They found that the cooperative learning group scored
significantly higher on a world geography test. <errault ('(-:='(->) found that cooperative
learning resulted in significantly higher achievement in industrial arts students at the
knowledge and comprehension levels of ?loom&s ta"onomy, #ut not at the application level
when compared to students taught #y competitive methods. /n a study in which nutrition was
taught to #oth elementary and secondary students using a cooperative learning strategy,
9odarski, Adelson, Todd, and 9odarski ('(-)) found significant gains #etween the pretest
and posttest scores. The researchers concluded that cooperative learning was an effective
method of teaching nutrition. /n a review of 51 studies related to cooperative learning, Slavin
('(->) found that cooperative learning resulted in significant positive effects in 1>@ of the
studies, and only two studies reported higher achievement for the comparison group. +ohnson,
%aruyama, +ohnson, Aelson, and Skon ('(-') conducted a meta-analysis of ':: studies
related to cooperative learning and concluded that there was strong evidence for the
superiority of cooperative learning in promoting achievement over competitive and
individualistic strategies.
+ohnson and Ahlgren ('(.1) e"amined the relationships #etween students& attitudes toward
cooperation, competition, and their attitudes toward education. The results of the study
indicated that student cooperativeness, and not competitiveness, was positively related to
#eing motivated to learn. 0umphreys, +ohnson, and +ohnson ('(-:) also found that students
studying physical science in a cooperative learning treatment group rated their learning
e"perience more positively than did students in competitive and individualistic treatment
groups. T$osvold, %arine, and +ohnson ('(..) found that cooperative learning strategies
promoted positive attitudes toward #oth didactic and in!uiry methods of teaching science, and
students taught #y cooperative strategies #elieved they had learned more from the lesson than
did students taught #y competitive strategies. /n a study involving elementary and secondary
students who were taught nutrition, 9odarski, et al., ('(-)) found that (B@ of the elementary
students en$oyed the cooperative learning activities and that they had learned a lot a#out
nutrition.
Stat!*!nt o t2! Prob%!*
9hile cooperative learning as an instructional methodology is an option for teachers, it is
currently the least fre!uently used (+ohnson , +ohnson, '(('). %ore than -B@ of the
instruction in schools consists of lectures, seatwork, or competition in which students are
isolated from one another and for#idden to interact (+ohnson, +ohnson, 0olu#ec, , Coy,
'(-5). Doodlad ('(-5) reported that most classroom time is spent in 8teacher talk8, with only
'@ of the students& classroom time used for reasoning a#out or e"pressing an opinion.
Droup work has #een used e"tensively in home economics to provide practice in ac!uiring
#oth competence and skills in interpersonal relations. The introduction of cooperative learning
strategies in home economics has potential for improving the group activities commonly used
in these classes (0all , <aolucci, '(.:). 9hile empirical evidence supports the use of
cooperative learning with a variety of su#$ect areas and age groups, the e"tent to which these
methods are #eneficial in home economics education is unknown. 9ithout empirical evidence
to support the effectiveness of cooperative education in home economics, it is likely to #e
ignored as an instructional methodology #y home economics educators.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative learning approach of
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the achievement, retention of information,
and attitudes toward the instructional method of selected home economics students. The
following research !uestions provided the specific focus for the studyE
'. 9as there a difference in achievement, as measured #y the researcher developed
achievement test for students who have #een taught #y the cooperative learning
method, STAD, and those who were taught #y noncooperative methodsF
:. 9as there a difference in retention of information, as measured #y the researcher
developed retention test administered three weeks after the end of instruction for
students who have #een taught #y the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those
who were taught #y noncooperative methodsF
>. 9as there a difference in the attitudes toward the teaching method used for students
who have #een taught #y the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those who were
taught #y noncooperative methodsF
R!s!ar,2 M!t2o#s an# Pro,!#ur!s
The population for this study consisted of home economics students enrolled in a 7ood and
Autrition course in high schools in the central region of Aorth arolina. 7our schools that
offered two or more sections of the food and nutrition course agreed to participate in the
study. The design of study was !uasi-e"perimental with (' students in the cooperative
learning (STAD) group and ')1 students in the non-cooperative learning group. According to
0ays ('(.>), samples of this si6e would allow the researchers to detect differences #etween
the treatment groups larger than ).B) standard deviations at an alpha level of .)B and a desired
power of .(). 3nce classes from each participating school were identified, they were
randomly assigned to cooperative and noncooperative treatment groups.
/n order to account for possi#le pre-e"isting differences in overall a#ility #etween the
treatment groups, alifornia Achievement Test scores and first semester grades in home
economics were used as covariate measures. /n order to control for the 8teacher !uality8
varia#le, #oth groups were taught #y the regular home economics teachers who were provided
inservice in the use of STAD #y an e"pert on cooperative learning. Teachers were also
provided detailed instructions for conducting learning activities in #oth the cooperative and
noncooperative groups. ?oth groups were taught the nutrition unit using the same content
outline, #ut students in the cooperative learning group completed learning activities in small
heterogeneous groups, while the students in the non-cooperative group completed activities
individually. The unit was taught to #oth groups over a two-week period.
An instrument to measure student achievement and retention was developed from items
related to the unit of instruction in the state-adopted competency test-item #ank. ontent
validity of the items was assessed at the time they were developed for the test-item #ank, and
was verified #y home economics teachers, a home economics teacher educator, and a state
consultant for home economics. /tems related to each instructional o#$ective were selected for
the instrument. The instrument was pilot tested to esta#lish relia#ility in a school not selected
to participate in the study. The 2uder-Cichardson coefficient of internal consistency for the
instrument was .-.. The test was administered to #oth groups at the end of the instructional
unit. Three weeks later, the test was administered again to the students to determine retention
of information.
The instrument used to measure attitudes toward the method of instruction was developed and
used in a similar study #y 7lowers ('(-1='(-.). ontent validity of the attitude instrument
was esta#lished #y faculty at the Gniversity of /llinois who had e"perise in the development
of attitude instruments. The instrument had a coefficient of internal consistency (ron#ach&s
Alpha) of .-(. The attitude instrument was administered at the end of the unit of instruction.
Fin#in&s an# Con,%usions
<reliminary analyses of covariate measures (alifornia Achievement Test scores and average
grade in home economics) showed that students in the treatment groups were not significantly
different (see Ta#le '). %oderate relationships, with correlation coefficients ranging from .:(
to .B5, were found #etween the covariate measures and the dependent varia#les of
achievement and retention. These relationships supported the use of the covariate measures
used in this study.
Tab%! 7
Co*-arison o CAT S,or!s an# Ho*! E,ono*i,s Gra#! b) T!a,2in& M!t2o#
AT Average grade
%ethod n % SD % SD
ooperative -. .5'.>> >).:' .(.(: (.B-
Aoncooperative ')1 .5'.BB :(.>1 -:.>) ').:>
t H
).)B
p H .(1 t H '.1. p H .')
Student achievement was measured #y the num#er of correct responses on the >>-item
achievement test developed #y the researchers. The mean scores for the treatment groups were
ad$usted #y the covariate measures to statistically control for pree"isting differences. The
ad$usted mean score for the cooperative learning group was '(.1', while the ad$usted mean
score for the noncooperative treatment group was '(.B: (see Ta#le :). The test of retention
was administered three weeks following the achievement test. The ad$usted mean score for the
cooperative learning group on the retention test and the noncooperative group were very
similar.
%ultivariate analysis of covariance (%AA3;A) was used to analy6e the data related to the
dependent varia#les of student achievement and retention of information. %AA3;A
showed no significant difference among the dependent varia#le #etween the teaching methods
used I0otelling&s T H .)))'B, 7(:, '-) H ).'5, p H .((J. Since the multivariate analysis showed
no difference #etween the treatment groups, no further analyses were performed related to
student achievement or retention.
Tab%! 3
M!an Stu#!nt A,2i!(!*!nt an# R!t!ntion S,or!s b) T!a,2in& M!t2o#
Achievement Test Cetention Test

%ethod n 3#served
mean
Ad$usted
mean
3#served
mean
Ad$usted
mean
ooperative () '(.>- '(.1' '-.:. '-.5(
Aoncooperative ')5 '(..B '(.B: '-.1> '-.5'
Student attitude toward the teaching method was not included in the multivariate analysis
#ecause it was not assumed to #e correlated with the other dependent varia#les. <earson
product moment correlation coefficients of .)1 and .') confirmed that student attitudes were
not related to achievement or retention, respectively. The mean attitude score for students in
the cooperative learning group was -'.5B (sd H 'B.(1), while the mean score for students in
the noncooperative group was ...)) (sd H 'B.:'). A t-test showed no significant difference in
attitudes toward the teaching method #etween the groups (t H '.-5, df H '15, p H .).).
?ased upon the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawnE
'. The cooperative learning approach is no more or less effective than the noncooperative
learning approach with regard to home economics student achievement or student
retention of information.
:. The cooperative learning approach is no more or less effective than the noncooperative
learning approach with regard to home economics students& attitudes toward the
method of instruction.
I*-%i,ations an# R!,o**!n#ations
9hile cooperative learning was not found to #e more effective than noncooperative learning
with respect to home economics students& achievement and retention in this study, the
literature suggests there may #e additional reasons to use cooperative learning. ertainly, the
a#ility to work with others within a group and to develop interpersonal skills may #e
$ustification for using cooperative learning strategies. This study has shown that cooperative
learning methods were as effective as noncooperative methods with regard to achievement
and retention, so concerns a#out the effectiveness of cooperative learning methods in these
areas have #een addressed. Students taught #y cooperative methods should perform e!ually as
well as students taught #y noncooperative methods. /n addition, student attitudes toward
cooperative learning are similar to noncooperative learning.
Additional research should #e conducted to increase the generali6a#ility of the findings to
home economics education. Studies in which cooperative learning strategies are used for a
semester or an entire year should #e conducted to determine if student achievement is
increased with additional e"perience in using cooperative learning. 7uture research should
also focus on comparisons #etween different models of cooperative learning, as well as
comparisons with noncooperative learning approaches in order to determine if other
cooperative learning models are e!ually effective in producing desired student outcomes.
R!!r!n,!s
Allen, 9.0. , ;an Sickle, C.4. ('(-5). 4earning teams and low achievers. Social Kducation,
5-, 1)-15.
arol, A. ('(--). 0igh school graduates in entry level $o#sE 9hat do employers wantF (Kric
Digest Ao. 5)). Aew LorkE Ceproduction Service Ao. KD :(>(.:.
arson, 4. ('(()). ooperative learning in the home economics classroom. +ournal of 0ome
Kconomics, -:(5), >.-5'.
Damon, 9. ('(-5). <eer educationE The untapped potential. +ournal of Applied
Developmental <sychology, B, >>'->5>.
Dishon, D. , 3&4eary, <. ('(-5). A guide#ook for cooperative learningE A techni!ue for
creating more effective schools. 0olmes ?each, 74E 4earning <u#lications.
7lowers, +.4. ('(-.). Kffects of the pro#lem solving approach on achievement, retention, and
attitudes of vocational agriculture students in /llinois. (Doctoral dissertation, Gniversity of
/llinois at Gr#ana-hampaign, '(-1). Dissertation A#stracts /nternational, 5., >:-BA.
Doodlad, +./. ('(-5). A place called school. Aew LorkE %cDraw 0ill.
0all, 3.A., , <aolucci, ?. ('(.:). Teaching home economics. Aew LorkE +ohn 9iley , Son,
/nc.
0ays, 9.4. ('(.>). Statistics for the social sciences. Aew LorkE 0olt Cinehart, and 9inston.
0umphreys, ?., +ohnson, C.T., , +ohnson, D.9. ('(-:). Kffects of cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic learning on students& achievement in science class. +ournal of Cesearch in
Science Teaching, '((B), >B'->B1.
/mel, S. ('(-(). Kmployers& e"pectations of vocational education. (Kric Digest Ao. ()).
olum#us, 3hioE KC/ learinghouse on Adult, areer, and ;ocational Kducation. (KC/
Document <roduction Service Ao. KD >'-(':).
+ohnson, D.9. , Ahlgren, A. ('(.1). Celationship #etween student attitudes a#out
cooperation and competition and attitudes toward schooling. +ournal of Kducational
<sychology, 1-('), (:-'):.
+ohnson, D.9., , +ohnson, C.T. ('(-.). 4earning together and aloneE ooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. Knglewood liffs, A+E <rentice 0all.
+ohnson, D.9., , +ohnson, C.T. ('(-(). 4eading the cooperative school. Kdina, %AE
/nteraction.
+ohnson, D.9., , +ohnson, C.T. ('(()). Social skills for successful group work. Kducational
4eadership, 5.(5), :(->>.
+ohnson, D.9., , +ohnson, C.T. ('(('). 4earning together and aloneE ooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. Third Kdition. Knglewood liffs, A+E <rentice 0all.
+ohnson, D.9., +ohnson, C.T., , 0olu#ec, K.+. ('(-1). ircles of learningE ooperation in the
classroom. Kdina, %AE /nteraction ?ook ompany.
+ohnson, D.9., +ohnson, C.T., 0olu#ec, K.+., , Coy, <. ('(-5). ircles of learningE
ooperation in the classroom. Ale"andria, ;AE Association for Supervision and urriculum
Development.
+ohnson, D.9., %aruyama, D., +ohnson, C.T., Aelson, D., , Skon, 4. ('(-'). Kffects of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievementE A meta analysis.
<sychological ?ulletin, -(, 5.-1:.
2erka, S. ('(()). +o# related #asic skills. (Kric Digest Ao. (5). olum#us, 3hioE KC/
learinghouse on Adult, areer, and ;ocational Kducation. (KC/ Document <roduction
Service Ao. KD >'-(':.
%c2eachie, 9.+. ('(-1). Teaching tipsE A guide#ook for the #eginning college teacher.
4e"ington, %AE D.. 0eath and ompany.
<erreault, C.+. ('(->). An e"perimental comparison of cooperative learning to noncooperative
learning and their effects on cognitive achievement in $unior high industrial arts la#oratories.
(Doctoral dissertation, Gniversity of %aryland, '(-:). Dissertation A#stracts /nternational,
5>, >->)A.
Sherman, 4.9. , Thomas, %. ('(-1). %athematics achievement in cooperative goal-
structured high school classrooms. +ournal of Kducational Cesearch, .)(>), '1(-'.:.
Slavin, C.K. ('(->). 9hen does cooperative learning increase achievementF <sychological
?ulletin, (5, 5:(-55B.
Slavin, C.K. ('(-.). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learningE A
reconciliation. hild Development, B-, ''1'-''1..
Slavin, C.K. ('(()). ooperative learningE Theory, research, and practice. Aew +erseyE
<rentice 0all.
Slavin, C.K. ('(('). Student team learningE A practical guide to cooperative learning.
9ashington, D..E Aational Kducation Association.
T$osvold, D., %arine, <., , +ohnson, D.9. ('(..). The effects of cooperation and competition
on student reactions to in!uiry and didactic science teaching. +ournal of Cesearch in Science
Teaching, ''(5), :-'-:--.
9odarski, 4.A., Adelson, .4., Todd, %.T., , 9odarski, +.S. ('(-)). Teaching nutrition #y
teams-games-tournaments. +ournal of Autrition Kducation, ':(:), 1'-1B